Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

cross_signal_correlate

Discover correlations between different signal types. Example: relationship between ad fill rate and audience attention for QSR venues.

Queries the cross_signal_insights table for pre-computed correlations, or computes ad-hoc correlations from the observation_stream when no pre-computed insight exists.

WHEN TO USE:

  • Understanding relationships between different sensing signals

  • Finding which audience behaviors correlate with business outcomes

  • Discovering hidden patterns (e.g., crowd_energy vs purchase_intent)

  • Validating hypotheses about audience-venue-time relationships

RETURNS:

  • data: Correlation analysis with:

    • signal_a, signal_b: The two signals being correlated

    • correlation_r: Pearson correlation coefficient (-1 to +1)

    • correlation_r2: R-squared (proportion of variance explained)

    • p_value: Statistical significance

    • sample_count: Number of data points used

    • effect_size: Cohen's d effect size

    • confidence_interval_lower, confidence_interval_upper: 95% CI bounds

    • insight_summary: Human-readable interpretation

  • metadata: { computation_method, window, filters_applied }

  • suggested_next_queries: Related correlation analyses to explore

EXAMPLE: User: "Is there a correlation between audience attention and ad fill rate at QSR venues?" cross_signal_correlate({ signal_a: "attention_score", signal_b: "ad_fill_rate", filters: { venue_type: "restaurant_qsr" } })

User: "How does crowd energy relate to purchase intent during lunch hours?" cross_signal_correlate({ signal_a: "crowd_energy", signal_b: "purchase_intent", filters: { daypart: "lunch" } })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filtersNoOptional filters to narrow the correlation analysis
signal_aYesFirst signal to correlate (e.g., face_count, attention_score, crowd_energy, emotional_engagement, vehicle_count, noise_level, purchase_intent, ad_fill_rate)
signal_bYesSecond signal to correlate against signal_a

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool queries a pre-computed table or computes ad-hoc correlations, and details the exact return structure. It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the read-only nature is strongly implied through 'queries' and 'computes.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: intro, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, and EXAMPLE. Each section earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose ensures immediate understanding. No irrelevant details or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description thoroughly documents all return fields (correlation_r, p_value, metadata, etc.) and includes examples. It covers purpose, usage, return format, and parameter illustrations, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete example values for signal_a and signal_b (attention_score, ad_fill_rate) and shows how to use filters (venue_type, daypart). This goes beyond the schema's enum-like examples, warranting a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover correlations between different signal types,' with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cross-signal correlation analysis, and the verb+resource pairing is specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section enumerates four clear scenarios (understanding relationships, finding hidden patterns, etc.) and includes two full examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are exact duplicates (get_task_status/tasks_get, list_tasks/tasks_list) and several overlapping analytics, attribution, and semantic search clusters (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention; find_similar_moments vs semantic_search_observations; get_campaign_attribution vs get_multi_touch_attribution vs get_roas). Detailed descriptions help, but with 83 tools an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_devices, create_campaign, delete_webhook), but there are notable inconsistencies: list_* and get_* are used interchangeably for list operations, attention tools mix conventions (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention), and the legacy tasks_get/tasks_list names break the established get_task_status/list_tasks pattern.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning device management, sensing, campaigns, media buys, attribution, webhooks, billing, API discovery, and AdCP protocol concerns. This is a broad API surface dump rather than a focused tool set, and it would be far better split into several coherent servers.

Completeness2/5

Despite the enormous surface, core campaign lifecycle is incomplete: create_campaign explicitly tells the agent to use update_campaign to activate a campaign, but no update_campaign tool exists, and there are no list/delete campaign tools. Significant capabilities exist for analytics, attribution, and webhooks, but the primary advertising workflow has a dead end.

Resources